RANJEET KUMAR KARSAULIYA v. STATE OF U.P. THRU. PRIN. SECY. HOME DEPTT. LKO. AND ANOTHER
ABAIL/629/2025 · 2025-09-16
Subhash Vidyarthi
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 143244 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 143244 (ALL) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW CRIMINAL MISC ANTICIPATORY BAIL APPLICATION U/S 438 CR.P.C. No. - 629 of 2025 Court No. - 13 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.
1. Heard Sri Deepak Kumar, the learned counsel for the applicant as well as Sri Ajay Kumar Singh, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State and perused the records.
2. The instant application has been filed by the applicant seeking anticipatory bail in F.I.R. bearing Case Crime No.0510 of 2023, under Sections 419, 420, 467, 468, 471 I.P.C. and Section 4/10 U.P. Public Examination Act, 1998, registered at Police Station Ashiyana, District Lucknow.
3. The aforesaid case has been registered on the basis of an F.I.R. lodged on 17.12.2023 against the applicant and another accused person Sushil Kumar stating that in a public examination for making selections to the post of Hostel Warden the co-accused was appearing in place of the applicant.
4. The learned counsel for the applicant has submitted that the applicant was not caught Ranjeet Kumar Karsauliya State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Deptt. Lko. And Another Counsel for Applicant(s) : Deepak Kumar, Ajeet Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party(s) : G.A.
committing any offence and the applicant has no concern with co-accused Sushil Kumar who was appearing for the applicant.
5. The applicant was a candidate in the selection process for making appointments to the post of Hostel Warden. The co-accused was appearing in the examination in his place whereas the applicant had himself not gone to write the examination paper. Prima facie it appears that the co-accused was writing the examination paper for the applicant.
6. Having considered the nature of allegations, I am of the view that the aforesaid facts do not warrant exercise of discretion of this court by granting pre-arrest bail to the applicant. Accordingly, the anticipatory bail application is rejected. September 16, 2025 Ram. (Subh ash Vidya rthi,J. ) Digitally signed by :- RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench